New gTLD ProgramCommunity Priority Evaluation ReportReport Date: 17 March 2014Application ID:Applied-for String:Applicant Name:1-1025-18840
TAXITaxi Pay GmbHOverall Community Priority Evaluation SummaryCommunity Priority Evaluation ResultDid Not PrevailThank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensivereview of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the CommunityPriority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in theApplicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 ofthe Applicant Guidebook.
Panel SummaryOverall Scoring6 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community EndorsementTotalEarned00336Achievable444
416Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14Criterion #1: Community Establishment1-A Delineation0/4 Point(s)0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application didnot meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook, as the community demonstrates insufficient delineation, organization and preexistence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-A: Delineation.
DelineationTwo conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear straightforwardmembership definition and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplicant) among its members.

Page	  1	  	  The community defined in the application (“taxi”) is:The global taxi community, including its four main community groups: Firstly, the core taxi industrywith taxi drivers, taxi offices, and individual taxi entrepreneurs, all of which can be clearly identifiedbased on their taxi licenses, as well as a certificate of registration, i.e. a trade register excerpt.
Secondly, the taxi community includes the members of the immediate surrounding industry, such ashardware and software suppliers, recruiting and training companies, auto shops, automotivesuppliers, insurances and pertinent press all with a very strong if not exclusive focus on the justdescribed core taxi industry. This particular community group is identified through trade registerexcerpts. Thirdly, the community includes superordinate organizations, such as governmentalorganizations, public authorities and institutions and committees with the purpose of establishingrelevant policies for the core taxi industry, as well as non-governmental organizations with thepurpose of advocating taxi-related issues towards the public sector, the general public and relevanttaxi industry representatives on a municipal, regional, national and international level. This groupverifies its affiliation to the taxi community through a written, official and verified statement by itssuperordinate authority or a certificate of a verified register of associations. Fourthly, the taxicommunity includes affiliated businesses, such as owners of trademarks with a special interest in theproducts and services of the core taxi industry, such as major places of public interest (i.e. hospitals)or major events of public interest (i.e. Oscar Academy Awards).
This community definition shows a clear and straightforward membership. While broad, the community isclearly delineated, as membership is dependent on having appropriate documentation (licenses, certificate ofregistration, etc.).
However, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness and recognition among itsmembers. This is because the many affiliated businesses and sectors would have only a tangential relationshipwith the core taxi community, and therefore would not associate themselves with being part of thecommunity as defined by the applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application onlysatisfies one of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation.
OrganizationTwo conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entitymainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
The community as defined in the application does not have at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity. Additionally, existing entities do not represent a majority of the community as defined by theapplicant. According to the application:The taxi community currently lacks a single and overarching international umbrella organization.
Even though there are a handful of organizations with a global claim, none of those comes close toeven covering the majority of all community organizations….. It is the strong interest of TaxiPayGmbH to establish long term and sustainable relationships with stakeholders, thus creating anetwork based on all four major constituent parts of the taxi community.
The community as defined in the application does not have documented evidence of community activities.
As there is no entity that is mainly dedicated to the community as defined in the .Taxi application, there is nodocumented evidence of community activities.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application doesnot satisfy either of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existencePage	  2	  	  To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed).
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. The community asdefined by the applicant is a construed community and therefore could not have been active prior to theabove date (although its constituent parts were active).
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application doesnot fulfill the requirements for pre-existence.	  
1-B Extension0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application didnot meet the criterion for Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) ofthe Applicant Guidebook, as the application did not demonstrate considerable size or longevity for thecommunity. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
SizeTwo conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable sizeand must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of a considerable size. The community for .Taxi as defined inthe application is large both in terms of geographical reach and number of members.
However, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness and recognition among itsmembers. This is because the many affiliated businesses and sectors would have only a tangential relationshipwith the core taxi community, and therefore would not associate themselves with being part of thecommunity as defined by the applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application onlysatisfies one of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
LongevityTwo conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstratelongevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application does not demonstrate longevity. The pursuits of the .Taxicommunity are not of a lasting, non-transient nature as the community as defined by the applicant is aconstrued community.
Additionally, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness and recognition among itsmembers. This is because the many affiliated businesses and sectors would have only a tangential relationshipwith the core taxi community, and therefore would not associate themselves with being part of thecommunity as defined by the applicant.	  
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application doesnot satisfy either of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.

Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community2-A Nexus0/4 Point(s)0/3 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion forNexus as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook.

Page	  3	  	  The string does not identify or match the name of the community, nor is it a well-known short-form orabbreviation of the community. The application received a score of 0 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A:Nexus.
To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community orbe a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name. To receive a partial score for Nexus,the applied-for string must identify the community.
The applied-for string (.Taxi) does not match or identify the name of the community. The application for.Taxi defines a core community of taxi companies and drivers, as well as peripheral industries and entities.
According to the application documentation:The word “taxi” describes the center of the taxi community, which is the taxi service and vehicleitself – the very object that all community groups, namely entrepreneurs and companies of the coretaxi industry, members of the immediate surrounding industry (i.e. suppliers), superordinateorganizations and affiliated businesses, as well as its beneficiaries, namely current and potential taxicustomers, have in common.
While the string identifies the name of the core community members (i.e. taxis), it does not match or identifythe peripheral industries and entities that are included in the definition of the community as described inCriterion 1-A. Therefore, there is a misalignment between the proposed string and community as defined bythe applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applied-for string does not match or identifythe name of the community as defined in the application, nor is it a well-known short-form or abbreviationof the community. It therefore does not meet the requirements for nexus.
2-B Uniqueness0/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion forUniqueness as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the ApplicantGuidebook as the string has other significant meaning beyond identifying the community described in theapplication. The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyondidentifying the community described in the application. The string as defined in the application does notdemonstrate uniqueness as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus and is therefore ineligible for ascore of 1 for Uniqueness. The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applied-for stringdoes not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness.

Criterion #3: Registration Policies3-A Eligibility3/4 Point(s)1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility asspecified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as eligibilityis restricted to community members. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospectiveregistrants to community members. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by requiringproof off affiliation through licenses, certificates of registration, official statements from superordinateauthorities, or owners of trademarks, etc. (Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicantdocumentation). The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfies thePage	  4	  	  condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.

3-B Name Selection1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for NameSelection as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebookas name selection rules are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD.
The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrantsmust be consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The applicationdemonstrates adherence to this requirement by outlining a comprehensive list of name selection rules, suchas requirements that second level domain names should not violate others’ trademarks, that they shouldfulfill technical and lexical requirements, and also demonstrate a connection to the name or occupation of theregistrant, amongst other requirements. (Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicantdocumentation). The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfies thecondition to fulfill the requirements for Name Selection.
3-C Content and Use1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Content andUse as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as therules for content and use are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-forTLD. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies must include rules for content anduse for registrants that are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-forgTLD. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by noting four relevant rules for contentand use, which include restricting content to taxi-related issues or indicating a strong connection to it,amongst other rules. (Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation).
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill therequirements for Content and Use.
3-D Enforcement0/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion forEnforcement as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the ApplicantGuidebook as the application provided specific enforcement measures but did not include appropriate appealmechanisms. The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies mustinclude specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appealsmechanisms. The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting acoherent set. The applicant will commission a Registry Service Provider to validate a registrant’s eligibility fora domain and to act upon requests/complaints on the basis of its registration policies. The applicant will alsoprovide an in-house validation agent in order to respond to cases of abuse and/or arising disputes.
(Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). However, theapplication did not outline an appeals process. The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that theapplication satisfies only one of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement.

Page	  5	  	  Criterion #4: Community Endorsement4-A Support3/4 Point(s)1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application partially met the criterion forSupport specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook asthere was documented support from at least one group with relevance The application received a score of 1out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. To receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documentedsupport from at least one group with relevance.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applicant was not the recognized communityinstitution(s) / member organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent the community,or documented support from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s). However,the applicant possesses documented support from at least one group with relevance and this documentationcontained a description of the process and rationale used in arriving at the expression of support. While theapplicant had support from several groups with relevance, these groups do not constitute the recognizedinstitutions to represent the community, as they are limited in geographic scope and do not represent theglobal community as defined by the applicant. The Community Priority Evaluation Panel determined that theapplicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support.
4-B Opposition2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Oppositionspecified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as theapplication did not receive any relevant opposition. The application received the maximum score of 2 pointsunder criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition ofrelevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, atmost, one group of non-negligible size.
The application received letters of opposition, which were determined to not be relevant, as they were eitherfrom groups/individuals of negligible size, or were not from communities which were not mentioned in theapplication but which have an association to the applied for string. The Community Priority Evaluation Paneldetermined that the applicant satisfies the requirements for Opposition.

Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the Applicant Guidebook or the Registry Agreement.
For updated application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the Applicant Guidebookand the ICANN New gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

Page	  6